Friday, July 20, 2007

Let's talk about that whole "anonymity" thing, shall we?

17 comments:

"That anonymity gives one the freedom to, say, be a little more snarky, caustic and downright acerbic (Hi, Antonia!) than one might normally be, without having to suffer the consequences. So, sure, that's a big plus."

Seems an awful lot like -- no, exactly like -- what I've been saying.

Yet your argument that you disadvantage yourself by remaining anonymous is nothing more than pure unadulterated garbage. Sure, you aren't a high-profile figure as whomever you may actually be (I'm still waiting to see if you have the courage to identify yourself). Then again, nor are you a high-profile figure as Canadian Cynic. There's no difference in the two scenarios. Your argument simply has no basis in logic.

Secondly, your belief that the quality of your blog is what results in your traffic is flagrantly false, and I think you know it. You attract the majority of your traffic by resorting to the lowest common denominator -- by writing inflammatory posts, then trolling your ideological opponent's blogs, drawing them back to your own to retaliate on your blog -- often on posts you write about your opponents.

After all, it might not be factually accurate to libellously accuse your opponents of treason (for example), but it sure does please the black little heart of a particularly vicious partisan, and provoke the ire of the accusee.

I think by now you must realize I basically have you pegged: you seem to enjoy hiding behind anonymity (something you've already admitted you are doing), yet I wonder what your friends and family would think if they knew you were the person who told the mother of a fallen soldier to "fuck off".

Like I said before, I think you're more likely to be punched out by someone you know than by any "bullying right-wingers" as your cohorts have so ludicrously insisted.

Is that why you keep calling the Cinic a "coward?," to find out who he is so you or your friends can beat him up?

Unless you are trying to goad the Cynic into a physical fight, your tedious obsession with the Cynic's given name and address is overdone already. If, on the other hand, you are determined to find the Cynic so you and your friends can beat him up, I think you have conceeded your point.

You have been-free with your responses to ti-guy; I hope you will respond to this post.

In my opinion, you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. You are not arguing with the Cynic, you are calling him names.

I agree you anger has some basis. I regard the remarks the Cynic made about Wanda Watkins as insensitive. No matter what Ms. Watkins’ politics may be, she had just lost a son, and was trying to convince herself that her loss had some meaning. I believe the Cynic should have cut her some slack.

I cannot however accept the notion that you sincerely could harbor such intense anger towards the Cynic. Where was your anger when you heard or read about the abuse directed at Cindy Sheehan, the American mother who lost a son in Iraq and became an anti-war protestor? If you can handle the abuse of the similarly situated Cindy Sheehan, you ought to be able to handle the Cynic’s comments about Ms. Watkins.

Your intense personal attack against the Cynic on this blog leads reasonable people to believe you would continue your harassment of the Cynic if you learned his given name and address, and that you anger would escalate well beyond what is called for by his comments, or by what the Criminal Code of Canada allows.

We believe it is useful for the Cynic to protect himself from the affects of your anger. If you could determine his identity, you could physically intimidate him, and we would lose his voice on the web. We also believe his anonymity, especially in the face of your seemingly uncontrollable hostility, is honorable. Blogging should not be allowed to become an invitation to fisticuffs, or worse. We have “biker bars” for that kind of thing.

But if you can beat your anger, and resume your argument with the Cynic or his stable of commenters, welcome back.

The Seer calling someone intellectually dishonest. That has got to be about the funniest thing that I've heard all day -- and keep in mind that I've been informed of CC's true identity, and that is a real chuckler.

Furthermore, I don't need to address the treatment of Cindy Sheehan: I already have. I've been in no rush to do so until Cynic started waving around Sheehan as if it somehow makes him different from his opponents (it doesn't), but I have addressed it: many of the comments directed at Sheehan are equally unacceptable.

Yet, your wish to defend Cynic while denouncing his critics make you every bit the hypocrite that he is. If you're comfortable with that, that's entirely your choice. I sure wouldn't be, in your shoes, but then again, I don't defend the use of internet anonymity as an excuse to be beligerent.

If you think I care enough about the Cynic to invest my precious time in whatever means of harassment you're imagining, you're imagining me to be the wrong individual. As I've previously said, all I want him to reveal is a name. Without all the information I don't want -- address, phone number, city of residence -- that information is entirely useless in terms of that.

And even if a person did have this information which I have already stated that I do not want (and apparently you and your cohorts are too thick for that to register with you), do you really think I'm going to travel all the way across the country to deliver a severe beating to your little buddy, just because he deserves it?

If you believe that, you are retarded. You can call that me calling you names, but I call it what it is: me bringing it to your attention that you are, in fact, retarded if you believe that to be the case.

Furthermore, if you believe that anyone is losing anything of value if the Cynic's "voice" is lost on the internet, you're retarded. As far as anyone with a shred of intellectual dignity is concerned, losing Cynic's "voice" would actually be a benefit to everyone involved, even people like yourself who are obviously too stupid -- or intellectually dishonest with yourself -- to realize that.

yeah, right "Patrick Ross" if that really is your name, you run a blog called the nexus of assholery, insist that CC deserves to be beaten up and you expect us to believe that all you want is his name so that you can know what his name is. We all know what city he lives in, its right up there on the top of the blog, maybe someone could read that to you. You wouldn't dream of taking any physical action yourself - shit, that would mean putting down the cheesies and mountain dew, putting pants on and leaving mom's basement. All so you could get your punk ass kicked anyway. No, you'd just pass the name along to the rabid dogs on SDA and Free Dominion and hope that they would be willing to do your dirty work for you. And you know there are enough half-bright rednecks over there that might be tempted to try. It isn't a question of cowardice, it's just good sense to stay unidentified, so that you don't have to deal with harrassment from fucking knuckle dragging morons. It's the same reason most famous people have unlisted phone numbers.

...and you expect us to believe that all you want is his name so that you can know what his name is.

So that he can face his real-life friends and family with his comments. What is he so afraid of?

We all know what city he lives in, its right up there on the top of the blog, maybe someone could read that to you.

Is it? Hold on. Let me check. Waterloo? Yeah, right. I'm gonna travel from Edmonton to freakin' Waterloo just to deliver a horifically one-sided beating to some little jackoff who clearly spends so much time sitting on his own blog that his arms must be half-atrophied. You just hold your breath while I do that.

You wouldn't dream of taking any physical action yourself - shit, that would mean putting down the cheesies and mountain dew, putting pants on and leaving mom's basement.

My Facebook account is linked to my weblog. Feel free to swing on by and check out my social schedule. You feebs are lucky I make time for you at all.

All so you could get your punk ass kicked anyway.

Right. If Canadian Cynic can do anything to me that a 300-pound strand of drilling pipe couldn't, I'd really like to see that.

No, you'd just pass the name along to the rabid dogs on SDA and Free Dominion and hope that they would be willing to do your dirty work for you. And you know there are enough half-bright rednecks over there that might be tempted to try.

Go ahead. Go run a google search for "Patrick Ross" + "Free Dominon" or "SDA" (whatever the hell that is). Go ahead and acertain the extend of my involvement with them. Go right ahead.

It isn't a question of cowardice, it's just good sense to stay unidentified

"to, say, be a little more snarky, caustic and downright acerbic (Hi, Antonia!) than one might normally be, without having to suffer the consequences. So, sure, that's a big plus."

-Canadian Cynic

...so that you don't have to deal with harrassment from fucking knuckle dragging morons. It's the same reason most famous people have unlisted phone numbers.

First off, Canadian Cynic is hardly a famous person. Secondly, your paranoia is absolutely palpable. You're the one who's suggesting Cynic could kick my "punk ass" (I'd like to see that), yet you say he should be afraid of a few "knuckle dragging morons"?

Really, the only thing you're demonstrating here is your own mentality. I would actually suggest that you should be able to demonstrate that you're more than a "knuckle dragging moron" yourself before you start flinging that distinction at other people.